INTERNATIONAL DESIGN CONFERENCE - DESIGN 2010
Dubrovnik - Croatia, May 17 - 20, 2010.
HORSES, ELEPHANTS AND CAMELS ……
CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO
INTERDISCIPLINARY USER-CENTRED DESIGN
RESEARCH
Professor Paul Chamberlain
Keywords: industrial design, user-centred, interdisciplinarity
1. Abstract
This paper reflects on the evolution of design research and the growing recognition of the value of
interdisciplinary user-centred research methodologies in product development. The paper will
describe three practice based design research case studies, directed by the author, that highlight the
challenges and limitations of more traditional user--centred research methodologies. The paper will
demonstrate the role of design as research, and the role of artefacts as tools to access tacit knowledge
and as an aid to communication in the context of research. There are a wide variety of ways in which
users are involved in user-centred design activity. Generally users are consulted about their needs and
involved at specific times during the design process typically in the early stages to establish
requirements and later for usability testing. This paper presents a case for the value of a user-centred
design research method where ‘users’ and other stakeholders are involved as partners with the
designers throughout the design process.
2. Design Research? – background
Formal research practice has only impacted industrial design relatively recently having typically taken
an intuitive rather than a research based approach. Only in the past few decades has industrial design
literature articulated the role and value research. The design community reluctant at first has now
begun to recognise the value of research in design and it is now common place to adopt appropriate
research methodologies to inform design activity. There is however considerably less evidence and
acknowledgement of the value and role of design in research or as research itself.
There has been, and still often, a lack of distinction between research and the ‘gathering of
information’ and the distinction between ‘research’ and ‘advanced practice’ within Art & Design. Sir
Christopher Frayling (Frayling 2003), Rector of the Royal College of Art presented some clarity as he
described the distinction between; ‘research for design’, ‘research about design’ and ‘research
through design’. He makes the point that ‘research’ need not mean ‘academic research’ or ‘scientific
research’. It simply means ‘an enquiry whose goal is new and communicable knowledge’.
The definition of research can have different meaning and purpose to different communities. To
designers, research is often most helpful when it inspires something new or validates a direction of
enquiry, but to scientific researchers their methods have often been viewed as crude and lacking
rigour.
1
‘Research’ activity is evident in the work of Henry Dreyfus (Dreyfus 1955) one of the early pioneers
of industrial design. In describing his work he said,
“I have washed clothes, cooked, driven a tractor, run a diesel locomotive, spread manure, vacuumed
rugs, and ridden in an armored tank. I have operated a sewing machine, a telephone switchboard, a
corn picker, a lift truck, a turret lathe, and a linotype machine. When designing the rooms in a Statler
Hotel, I stayed in accommodations of all prices. I wore a hearing aid for a day and almost went deaf.
I stood beside a big new gun at Aberdeen Proving Grounds when it was fired, and was catapulted off
my feet. Members of our office have spent days and nights in airport control towers and weeks on a
destroyer during maneuvers. We ride in submarines and jet planes. All this in the name of research!”
This approach allows the designer to develop empathy with the user through direct contact with
context and activities. This approach to first hand experience ‘the task in hand’ has been widely
adopted by designers but still tends to lack academic recognition. Evidence of activity that integrates
scientific research methods with design processes have begun to establish credibility to the field of
design research, When a design team includes those with expertise in scientific research methods
there can be a heightened level of sophistication attached to the design process.
3. Methods of engagement
3.1 User -centred
‘User-centred’ design methods have been widely discussed, within product design discourse, and also
in the disciplines of human computer interaction (HCI), human factors engineering and ergonomics.
McDonagh-Philp suggests the following definition of user-centred design (McDonagh-Philp 1998):
"User-centred design is a design methodology that utilises the target product users as a designing
resource to increase the understanding of the design practitioner."
The term user-centred design is widely attributed to Donald Norman in the 1980’s and became widely
used after the publication of his co-authored book ‘User centred systems design’. He developed the
concept further in his seminal book ‘The psychology of everyday things’ (Norman 1988). Norman
stressed the need to fully explore the needs and desires of the users. The need to involve users, often
in the environment in which they would ultimately use the product being designed, was a natural
evolution in the field of user-centred design. Users became a central part of the development process.
It is often difficult to precisely identify who is the ‘user’ of a product or system is. There is often more
than one user and the user is not necessarily the person who will purchase the product. There are
generally accepted three types of users, primary secondary and tertiary. Primary users are those who
actually use the artefacts, secondary users are those who will occasionally use the artefact or those
who use it through an intermediary, and tertiary users are persons who will be affected by the use of
the artefact or make decisions about its purchase. Human-centered design is a broader concept, an
holistic approach that explores the relationships between the designer, the various end-users, and the
other ‘stakeholders’ within the system of production and consumption. This may include those who
manufacture, transport, sell, carry out maintenance, or dispose of the product or system at the end of
its useful working life. The successful design of a product or system must take into account the range
of potential stakeholders.
User engagement in the design process has often operated in the form of usability testing. This
generally involves potential users in real testing of products and systems where they can be observed
and questioned. Engagement can take place with prototypes in the early stages of development and
more resolved design solutions at the latter stages of development informed through analysing data
obtained. With the users involvement this can inevitably improve usability, functionality and
ergonomics but often does not allow users to inform early stages of fundamental research.
However ‘usability’ has limitations as participant numbers are often small, it does not always cover
all the ‘operational’ features and it is hard to ascertain how the product is going to perform over a
long period of time in the real environment. The problem often arising from a designer’s perspective
2
is that early concept ideas are difficult to ‘test’ with users and can easily be dismissed if
misunderstood.
3.2 Questionnaires and observation
The use of questionnaires is a widely tested method in engaging and understanding users, or
stakeholders, through research. A questionnaire is essentially a structured technique for collecting
primary data, a series of written questions for which the respondents have to provide answers. If a
questionnaire is well designed it can give accurate and useful information and should provide reliable
and relevant data. A questionnaire can be used as an ‘inductive’ method with the aim to formulate
new theory, where open-ended questions are used to explore a substantive area. Alternatively
questionnaires can be used as a means of collecting reliable data in a ‘deductive’ approach in order to
test existing theory. Questionnaires can be a useful tool if the questions asked are carefully considered
and importantly the responses are critically analysed. There is a danger, questionnaires can confirm
past prejudices and breed mediocrity and dullness. If Henry Ford had asked his ‘users’ prior to the
invention of the internal combustion engine what they wanted they might have responded with a need
for faster horses (figure 1). It takes a creative leap of imagination to interpret user needs and meet
these through products and services that ‘may not exist with users naive to the fact that they will want
them. Would the Wright brothers have invented the aeroplane based on a questionnaire, or Edison the
light bulb?
Figure 1. How Henry Ford may have responded to his users
As reported by (Light 2002) business consultant Martyn Perks controversially presented a case
highlighting the ‘limitations of user centered design’ with a view that business is now emphasising
the user at the expense of creativity and innovation. He states a case that ‘user research’ often treats
the user with disdain. ‘There is a ‘them and us’ mentality in working with users where users are
treated not as subjects but as objects. If you ask users, they will not tell you the whole story, they will
tell you the banal, because users often act subconsciously. User research is about today, not the future,
while innovation is a leap of imagination. Asking someone what they want is different from observing
what a person might need and there are different tools for doing so’.
Observation has a long tradition as a methodology in the social sciences and participant observation is
a central method for data collection in ethnography. Observation includes listening as well as looking
and everyday face to face interaction depends heavily on both verbal and visual behavior. Therefore
alongside observation, ethnomethodologists have directed much of their attention to conversation
3
analysis, since they see language as the fundamental base of communication and social order. Using
audio and videotaping they gather data that can be analysed extensively. Qualitative approaches to
observation are much more unstructured, the logic that categories and concepts for describing and
analysing the observational data will emerge later in the research during the analysis rather than being
brought to the research or imposed on the data from the start.
Limitations of observational techniques are findings may only reflect a unique population and
therefore cannot be generalised. There are also problems with researcher bias. Often it is assumed that
the researcher may ‘see’ what they want to see. There are generally two approaches to observational
methods. Direct observations where people know you are watching them. The danger here is that they
could react to you and change their behavior. Unobtrusive observation involves methods for studying
behavior where individuals do not know they are being observed. Inevitably the major challenge to
this approach is addressing the ethical issues.
3.3 Tacit knowledge
Polanyi has been widely cited in the context of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1958). He speaks on the role
of language of communicating knowledge While suggesting that language is a vital tool we can use to
share knowledge, he also emphasisis that we can often know how to do things without either knowing
or being able to articulate to why what we do works. ‘We can know more than we can tell.’ He goes
on to suggest that some types of knowledge have limited capacity for transfer. Art which cannot be
specified in detail cannot be transferred by prescription, since no prescription for it exists, it can be
passed on only by example from master to apprentice. The ‘things we don’t know we know ‘ can be
described as our ‘tacit’ knowledge and as Polanyi says we often find intuitive tasks difficult to
articulate. It is a design researchers challenge to access this tacit knowledge and adopt accordingly
appropriate research methodologies. Sveiby’s simple test provides a useful example to demonstrate
tacit knowledge. To test your tacit knowledge he constructs a simple challenge to touch your nose
with your index finger with your eyes closed. Most people have no problem achieving the task within
a few seconds however the majority have great difficulty when asked to describe how they did it in
detail. Articulating how you held your index finger, every movement your arm was doing, all different
angles, all the way up to your nose.
4. Interdisciplinary research
We use our analytical skills to divide he world into smaller and smaller units hoping that in
understanding the parts we will eventually understand the whole. Our schools, colleges and
universities teach us that knowledge is divided into academic disciplines. The more schooling we
have the more entrenched our disciplinarity can become. Discipline becomes the rationale for our
institutional structure.
The story of the six Blind Men and the Elephant, as a parable regarding the fact that people tend to
understand only a tiny portion of reality and then extrapolate all manner of dogmas from that, each
claiming only his one is the correct version, has re-appeared a number of times in both Western and
Oriental thought. Popularized by the nineteenth century American poet John Godfrey Saxe, the poem
describes how the blind men stumble across an elephant for the first time. The first man approaches
and feeling the elephant says. ‘It is very much like a wall’, the second feeling its tusks, ‘it is like a
spear’, the third it’s trunk, ‘like a snake’, the fourth its tail, ‘like a rope’, the fifth its ear, ‘like a fan’
and finally the sixth blind man feeling its leg, describes it ‘like a tree’. All present a logical
interpretation but their perceptions are misguided as they are unable to establish an holistic
understanding of what they have encountered. This can be similar to our limitations in research when
we are only able to establish a partial understanding.
Collaboration through interdisciplinary working can lead to a more holistic understanding. As Newell
(Newell 1998) points out, we need the depth and focus of disciplinary ways of knowing, but we also
need interdisciplinarity to broaden the context and establish links to other ways of constructing
knowledge. Multi disciplinary must not be confused with interdisciplinary ways of working,
Interdisciplinary work should be a more integrated seamless approach to collaboration with unified
4
common goals achieving a higher level of disciplinary integration. As opposed to a patchwork
approach where disciplinary groups work ‘together’ but within there own specific disciplinary
boundaries.
Despite increasing interdisciplinary activity our organisational frameworks often define our
experience and understanding of information. To combat this researchers within the Art & Design
Research Centre and the Centre for Health & Social Care research within Sheffield Hallam University
have created a cross faculty research community Lab4Living. (Lab4Living.org.uk). Its aim is to
propose creative strategies for the development of future living environments in which people of all
ages and abilities ‘not merely survive’ but are empowered to live with dignity, independence and
fulfillment. We adopt a holistic, human centred approach engaging stakeholders as partners in our
research.
Engaging users in design research and product development has more recently been referred to as
‘Participatory design’ or ‘Co design’. The terms can be contentious especially amongst the design
community and there is minimal literature to date that clearly defines these methodologies and their
value. Participatory design is credited to have emerged in Scandinavia born out of the labour unions
push to have more democratic control in their work environment (Ehn & Kyng 1989). This approach
can develop a deeper understanding of the psychological, organisational, social and ergonomic factors
that affect the use of the product. The involvement of users provides a platform where the product is
more likely to be suitable for its intended purpose and can lead to products that will be more effective,
efficient and safe. However while this approach helps identify needs, can inform product ideas and
test them, design and designing as an activity is much more and involves sophisticated technical and
visual understanding, issues related to production and manufacture, and an appreciation of commerce
and business. ‘Users’ ability to constructively participate or collaborate, if at all, in these latter aspects
of design, to date is less clearly defined, however there is potential benefit in engaging other
stakeholders (not necessarily users). Of course this does not advocate designing by committee, a term
referring to a style of design and its resultant output when a group of entities comes together to
produce something, particularly in the presence of poor and incompetent leadership. The defining
characteristics of "design by committee" are needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical
flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision. One maxim is that a camel is a horse designed by
committee; attributed to, among others, Sir Alec Issigonis in the context of industrial design
5. Case studies
Barriers to adopting user-centred approaches to product development are that it can be costly and time
consuming. It requires diverse skills and there can be challenges to understanding cultural and
language issues. The use of prototypes and artefacts can help overcome some of these challenges.
The following case studies describe design practice as research that has emerged from the Lab4living
research team and highlight the challenges in implementing some of the research methods mentioned.
5.1. TAC-TILE sounds
Chamberlain (Chamberlain and Roddis, 2003) describes the development of vibro-acoustic furniture
to be used therapeutically, by children who are profoundly deaf, or both deaf and blind. The flexible
modular furniture (figure 2) allows people with sensory impairments to experience sounds and music,
through the vibration of loudspeakers enclosed within furniture.
Early on in the project, the designers were able to discuss ideas with therapists and special needs
teachers who had expertise in working with children with sensory impairments, and also with
loudspeaker technologists, musicians and potential manufacturers (the stakeholders). However,
because of their disabilities, the end users (i.e. the children) could not actively participate in the
research. Traditional methods for engagement such as questionnaires, interviews, as discussed, were
unsuitable. It was hard to establish empathy with the user by engaging in ‘the activity’ as Dreyfuss
had done and ideas, concepts were difficult if not impossible to communicate and discuss in the
traditional sense with the end user.
5
Only when the designers produced working physical prototypes could the research team interact with
the user and develop any meaningful sense of understanding. The prototypes allowed the children to
control their own sensory experiences and establish a means of communication. The designers found
that the working prototypes acted as a bridge between themselves, the therapists and the children,
revealing new knowledge about the needs of the end user, and also as a catalyst for further research
and investigation.
Figure 2. Tac-tile sounds system
Traditionally new theory informs product development but in this case new theory emerged from the
product (or artefact) itself, the products enabled research. In a sense we were designing back to front
starting with physical things and concluded with new theory. The vibro-acoustic furniture emerging
from the project is manufactured and distributed in the UK by Rompa Limited. In 2000 the “Tactile
Sounds System” received two Millennium Product Awards from the UK Government Design Council.
5.1. Medical Connector system.
This project aimed to minimise medical misconnection errors through the design of a non
interchangeable medical connector system (Chamberlain et al 2008)
The increasing complexity of medical interventions and the associated medical devices means that
users are required to connect a multiplicity of external tubes to various types of diagnostic and
therapeutic devices. A typical patient in a coronary care unit may have as many as 40 connectors. It is
not surprising then that errors arise and recent incidents that have led to patient fatalities where drugs
were administered intrathecally (via the spine) that should have been delivered intravenously (into the
vein) has raised concern about the application of a single connector design to a number of
incompatible applications. Our research brought together a multidisciplinary team to design and test a
new system of medical connectors. There is now significant pressure for research and development
into a system of medical connectors that will distinguish between the different routes of delivery, so
that misconnections of this kind become physically impossible. The design of a non-interchangeable
connector system can eliminate the possibility of misconnection, which has the potential for
catastrophic results. An easily identifiable system should eliminate the common practice of
6
customised labeling and reduce the time for clinical checking procedures. Clinical practice will
benefit in terms of a safer, time saving system and should contribute to a less stressful working
environment.
The research brought together expertise in general and regional anaesthesia, critical care medicine
(Bradford Royal Infirmary), Psychology and human factors (University of Leeds) and industrial
design (Sheffield Hallam University) to develop an engineered design solution supported by a novel
means of enhancing the discriminability of a new system of connectors through visual and tactile
(haptic) cues. B.Braun Medical, a major international manufacturer and supplier to the health
industry, provided technical expertise and market insight.
Figure 3. Haptic discrimination tests of connector shapes
A key research challenge was to devise methods to evaluate visual and haptic discriminations and
affordances (figure 3). According to Norman an affordance is the design aspect of an object which
suggest how the object should be used; a visual clue to its function and use (Norman 1988). How
could the connectors’ shape and texture aid identification and afford their use and method of
connection? A varied set of connectors was designed and presented to users who were given timed
tasks to identify their affordances (push or twist). CAD simulations were used to test visual
affordances and physical prototypes were used to test and compare haptic affordances. These artefacts
therefore simulated new user experiences for study. The research team realised “conducting userbased research in the setting of an intensive care ward was going to be an ethical and practical
minefield”, using simulated experiences allowed such problems to be avoided. Physical artifacts were
fundamental in conducting and evaluating the role of touch (haptics) in the discrimination and
identification of small shapes appropriate for connector designs.
The project has produced generalisable knowledge about haptic affordances and a methodology for
evaluating them, which may inform the design of other safety critical control systems and three
patents have been filed relating to the innovative features of the connector design.
5.3. Future Bathroom
This project, funded by the EPSRC and facilitated by Mountain, Wright, Read and Burton as part of
the Lab4Living team, is in progress and is about improving the quality and design of bathroom
products for older people. The challenge is to design quality products that all bathroom users would
find acceptable as well as meeting the specific needs of older and disabled people.
The study adopts creative strategies in the design of bathroom furniture that can create space with the
flexibility to evolve and grow to reflect and meets the changing needs of individuals and their families
as they age. The aim of the project is to develop a robust methodology for fostering co-design
7
dialogue between designers, researchers and older people (aged 50+), with chronic age related health
conditions which lead to disability and frailty. Examples include arthritis, osteoporosis, stroke and
macular degeneration.
The project will also create a range of innovative and desirable bathroom prototypes (both bathroom
furniture/products and assistive technologies for bathroom use) that are sensitive to the problems of
living with disability, which do not stigmatise, are capable of manufacture and will demonstrate the
principles we have developed The project engages Ideal Standard as an industrial partner and experts
within the field of disability and assistive technologies.
Figure 3. Community researchers collecting data and ‘personal bathroom stories’
A key challenge of the project is in engaging users in a familiar but what is generally considered
‘taboo’ subject matter. The bathroom is a space of private and intimate ritual and the research
methods for developing an understanding of behavior has to be carefully considered. Questionnaires
are unlikely to reveal detailed insight and observational techniques are restrictive. An extensive
number of older users are engaged in the project (approx 80) through a series of ongoing workshops.
To enable the project team to develop more user insight, community researchers (older users with
disabilities) have been recruited to the project and trained accordingly. They have been visiting users
in their homes (figure 4) within the community interviewing them and recording their bathroom
facilities. Because the community researchers are likely to have more empathy with the older users
more intimate stories are emerging than are likely to have emerged through more traditional research
methods conducted by the academic research team.
Artefacts, prototypes are key to the research and can aid in accessing users tacit knowledge by
demonstrating the things they do through ‘doing’ rather than trying to verbalise the things they do
intuitively. For example getting in and out of a bath.
Key to the project is that the community researchers have been recruited to the project from the outset
and are engaged in every stage of the research and product development. The approach is that we are
researching and designing ‘with’ these users and not just ‘for’ them.
The topics of enquiry raises other interesting challenges and furthers the debate on defining the user?
The user group while having the potential to inform the research on age related physical issues have
very different experiences to that of younger users. Many have lived and experienced home with a tin
bath and outside toilet so their experiences and aspirations are very different to the future old.
Therefore we have engaged as stakeholders ‘future old’ so we can meet both the physical and
aspirational needs of a broad range of users. Culture and religion has a big impact on our washing and
toileting rituals. In response we are have extended our research with academic partners in Asia to
broaden our understanding of user behavior that might inform the development of our research
methods and design solutions within the context of the future bathroom. Our industrial partner is a
key stakeholder who brings a sense of commercial and technical reality to the project.
8
Conclusion
The case studies presented in this paper all involve complex user issues and present and highlight
barriers to traditional methods of research in engaging them and developing further our understanding
of their real needs. The ‘tac-tile sounds’ project involved deaf and deaf blind users where
communication in the normal sense proved impossible. The ‘medical connectors’ involved a diverse
group of users, clinical staff and patients, where the research was concerned with discrimination of
objects through touch in a safety critical situation. And lastly the ‘Future bathroom’ project engages
users in a very private topic of enquiry and concerns intimate activities that are difficult to observe.
Design and design research has evolved and progressed significantly since the early industrial design
pioneers. Dreyfus’ methods are still valid and extensively used as a research tool for designers but the
approach is limited. The case studies highlight the limitations of this method. It is arguably impossible
to experience the world of a deaf and blind child, it is difficult to experience the impact of drug
delivery in real world situations from the perspective of the diverse range of users, clinicians, and
wide range of patients. We can engage and do experience bathroom related activities but ultimately
the experience is limited when we need to consider, gender, age, culture, and disability issues. Current
research, including that of the Lab4Living team, adopts and adapts technology that proposes
simulated experiences so researcher can begin to establish empathy with a broader range of user
issues. While these are welcome and developments will progress research in our understanding users
it is often difficult to replicate true real world situations.
Defining the user can be challenging and in all case studies is complex. The extreme range of abilities
of the deaf blind children and therapists who might use the tac-tile sounds system. The users of the
medical connection system which will involve medics, nurses and patients who will range from the
very young to the very old. And the Future bathroom project while considering the wide-ranging
needs of the ageing population must not restrict usability for younger more able users and consider the
wide cultural user issues.
Adopting a more holistic approach to usability, a ‘human centered’ approach, can more readily
support the needs of all the stakeholders and all case studies have facilitated their engagement in the
research. Special needs teachers, therapists, deaf and blind children, musicians, acoustic specialists in
the case of the tac-tile sounds system and nurses, medics, psychologists, human factors, engineers in
the medical connectors project and older, disabled people, physios, occupational therapists in the
Future bathroom. All projects have been design led and key stakeholder involvement in all case
studies has been industry. Applied research often has to face the implications of commercial
compromise. Industrial participation in research and their close engagement with users and other
stakeholders might influence positive change in the products and services provided.
Case studies presented in this paper can be described as in Frayling's terms, ‘research through design’.
Clearly all case studies demonstrate design practice as a core activity of the research and while this
could be viewed positively as ‘advanced practice’, in isolation can not necessary be presented as
research. However each design case study presented has a distinct research agenda and findings
published accordingly, the tac-tile sounds system highlights the key role of artefacts as
communication and as tools to access tacit knowledge, the medical connector through controlled
experiments provide us with measurable data on the role of haptics in discriminating small objects.
The Future bathroom project currently in progress, while aiming to apply the research findings in the
design of improved bathroom products will contribute to the more formal development of co-design
methodologies in the context of research.
Design activity has traditionally been adopted once theory has been established by applying it
tangibly to inform new products. Design is much more than visual embellishment and its role and
contribution in fundamental research to enhance our understanding of users is gaining recognition. To
date there are limited examples of case studies that demonstrate the broad value of design as an
activity in research and more formal analysis of its role is needed to enhance its credibility in research
activity. Interdiscilpinarity, which all case studies exemplify, provides opportunities for new research
methodologies and the creation of knowledge, and is encouraging design researchers to articulate their
research with a heightened sense of sophistication and rigour.
9
Design has an important role to play in user-centred research that we must be careful to define. It
should enable us to better understand the world we live in and respond with innovative leaps of
imagination thus avoiding the need for ‘faster horses’. Interdisciplinary research collaborations
present many opportunities and challenges and demand a determined review of the value of our
existing disciplinary practice. However through these interdisciplinary collaborations we must ensure
we don’t end up with ‘camels’ but develop new methods to help us establish a more holistic
understanding of the ‘elephant’.
References
Chamberlain, P. & Roddis, J. ‘Making Sense’, A case study in collaborative design-led new product
development for the sensorial impaired in The Design Journal 6(1), 2003, pp 40-51.
Chamberlain, P. Gardner, P. Lawton. R. ‘Shape of things to Come’. Design Research Now. Essays and Selected
Projects (Board of International Research in Design). Edited by Ralf Michel, Published by Birkhauser-Verlag,
Germany, ISBN-978-3-7643-8471-5, 2008 p.99-119
Dreyfuss, H. ‘Designing for People’, Grossman Publishers, New York, 1955, p 62
Ehn P. & Kyng, M. ‘World-orientated design of computer artifacts’ (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. 1989
Frayling, C. ‘Design Research, Methods and Perspectives’, Edited by Brenda Laurel, MIT Press, ISBN-10:
0262-12263-4
ISBN-13:
978-0-262-12263, 2003. p. 11
Light, A. ‘Prodding at the Limit of user-centred design’, www.usabilitynews.com. Last accessed 10/12/09
McDonagh-Philp, Gender and Design: Towards an appropriate research methodology in Proceedings of the 5th
National Conference on Product Design Education, Glamorgan University, July 1998
Newell, W. ‘The place of interdisciplinary studies in higher education today’. Paper presented at the Association
of American Colleges and Universities and the Association for Integrative Studies. Chicago, IL. 1998
Norman, D. A. ‘The Psychology of Everyday Things’, Basic Books, New York, 1988, p 95
Polanyi M. Personal Knowledge ‘Towards a Post-Critical philosophy, University of Chicargo Press, Chicargo,
1958.
10